Barney Frank, that most dishonest Democrat, may, the good Lord willing, lose his job this November. His district voted for Scott Brown in that special election, and it’s looking increasingly likely that they will give Barney the boot as well.

Upon exiting the most recent debate with Barney Frank, located at WGBH studios in Boston, MA, Republican Congressional candidate, Sean Bielat, gets heckled by a Barney Frank “supporter” while talking to the media. While watching this video, we realized that we recognized this “supporter”. We received confirmation from two eyewitnesses that the mysterious cameraman was none other than Barney Frank’s pot-growing boyfriend, James Ready.

I can’t think of a race that better exemplifies what this election is all about — defeating corrupt, ruling-class socialists and replacing them with principled, honest, good men and women. You can help Bielat defeat one of America’s most loathsome politicians here. Go Sean!

Andrew Klavan tackles the financial crisis, and explains the connections. He also explains, with brief humor, why the Dodd Financial Reform bill is such a disaster. Under the guise of “protecting consumers” they encourage risk on Wall Street, offer taxpayer bailouts, and don’t reform any of the things that need reforming.

The Financial Crisis was caused by government, not Wall Street. It was not caused by deregulation, but by bad regulation. Fannie and Freddie, the Government Sponsored Enterprises, are in desperately bad shape.

Freddie Mac just posted another staggering quarterly loss — $8 billion in just the first quarter. That’s after taxpayers have supplied $60 billion in bailouts. The Republican alternative to the Dodd bill aims to wind down and break up Fannie and Freddie on a 15 year timeline, and to limit taxpayer exposure in the meantime. The Democrats want to kick that problem down the road, and they are still encouraging home loans to buyers who cannot meet prudent banking standards.

Economist Alan Reynolds points out Obama’s tendency to cram bills through by picking a business to demonize. Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield was the victim in the Health Care Bill when they were accused of raising premiums “by anywhere from 35-39 percent” except no one could find anyone who paid 39% more. For the Dodd Bill, the demon is Goldman Sachs, with a suspiciously timed civil suit as a flimsy excuse. And of course the bill is favored by Goldman, which tells you how straightforward this is.

So there’s a lot of reading if you want to bone up on the Dodd Bill, but Andrew Klavan has it pretty much exactly right.

I came across a statistic the other day that startled me. A poll determined that only 13% of Americans could distinguish between the political parties. That is, they could not tell you what each party stands for correctly. I listen to talk shows, and many callers claim that there is no difference between the parties, or they credit the wrong party with the wrong policy. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but the poll is at least partly right.

Can we agree that Republicans agree that small government is desirable? Yes, I know, they have many times been responsible for vast enlargement. Can we agree that Democrats generally feel that things are better handled by the government than by the free market?

Can we agree that Republicans believe in individual responsibility and the freedom to make of yourself what you can? Can we agree that Democrats believe in a caring government that makes things “fair”, taxing those who are rich to redistribute wealth more equally?

Can we then agree that the subprime crisis was the result of a well-intentioned desire to make the distribution of wealth more equal by helping minorities to own their own homes?

So, is Barack Obama the visionary figure who will bring America together as he claims to be? Or is he the far-left candidate that his record suggests?

Economists are worried. 100 distinguished economists signed a statement released by the McCain campaign:

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

We are very concerned with Barack Obama’s opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government’s “stimulus” package.

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

In sum, Barack Obama’s economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.
(For the economists statement on John McCain’s economic program, continue reading:)

A new survey from Chief Executive magazine found that 74% of CEOs fear that “an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”The survey found some CEOs worried that if implemented “[Obama’s] programs would bankrupt the country within three years”

The people who know something about creating jobs or creating problems for the economy have some important things to say. It’s worthwhile listening to them.

Thomas Sowell had a wonderful column last week at National Review on CEO pay. He began:

Congress is never more ridiculous than when it tries to look like it is serious.

In the midst of a major national financial crisis, what was one of the first things Congress zeroed in on? The pay of Chief Executive Officers of financial institutions.

If all those CEOs agreed to work for nothing, that would not be enough to lower the bailout money by one percent. Anyone who was really serious would start with the 99 percent and let the one percent come later.

But however insignificant the pay of CEOs is economically, it is big stuff politically. Whatever the shortcomings of the Democrats, they are consistent in their message and class envy is a great part of that message.

People who say that they cannot understand how CEOs in general get so many millions of dollars seem not to realize what a trivial thing they are saying. Most people do not understand most things. But that is no reason to have national policy guided by their ignorance. …

What really sets some people off is the fact that a CEO who has mismanaged some corporation into losing billions of dollars is rewarded with a severance package worth millions.

Think about it. If the CEO’s decisions are costing the company billions, it is a bargain to get him out the door immediately for millions, rather than having his departure delayed by either internal struggles or battles in the courts….

Politically imposed limits on the pay of CEOs is one of the most penny-wise and pound-foolish things that can be done. The difference between a top-notch CEO: and a second-rate CEO can be billions of dollars on the bottom line.

That is what drives up the pay of CEOs. If you want someone who will be top-notch in running organizations as huge and complex as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, there is no point offering $5 million a year if similar enterprises elsewhere are paying $20 million for people with the kind of ability required. [emphasis mine]

Do read the whole thing. It’s a great corrective for faulty thinking, and being honest, we all indulge in a lot of that. Clarifies a lot of the conversation about the “bailout” too. Not too many CEOs enjoy a very long tenure at their firms.

The dynamics of this election have changed. Democrats get it, Obama and Biden get it, I am relieved to see that House Republicans get it, even Bill O’Reilly gets it — but John McCain and his campaign managers are apparently in serious, campaign-ending denial.

A couple weeks back, the real change Americans were seeking was an end to the poisonous partisanship that has overflowed Washington DC and now affects their personal lives. People across America were (and still are) sick to death, not so much of the war, or Bush policies, but of the venomous, vitriolic politics that have affected their everyday lives and relationships. The bitterness that has defined American politics ever since Democrats saw setbacks in the Iraq war as political opportunity for themselves.

McCain’s message of bi-partisanship served him well in that campaign atmosphere, but because of the financial crisis, things have changed drastically and the McCain campaign still hasn’t caught up.

What McCain doesn’t get, and will cost him the election if he doesn’t wise up, immediately, is that fingers SHOULD be pointed. Names SHOULD be named. Americans are FURIOUS! — reaching for the pitchforks and torches furious — and rightfully so. They know this crisis was avoidable and they want to know who is responsible. They want to fire those responsible.

Democrats have already circled the wagons, they are already busy telling Americans that its all the fault of Bush, McCain and Republicans. In the absence of the truth that it is Democrat policies and Democrat corruption that caused this crisis, Americans will be left with no alternative but to believe Democrats lies. The shift in the polls towards Obama show that’s exactly what is happening.

I was optimistic yesterday when I saw Ace of Spades had put into words, what I had been cautiously hoping:

…I know what he’s doing.

John McCain is waiting until the bill passes.

And then he will unleash the dogs of war.

And he will say, “I stayed away from making these partisan attacks, even though you lied ridiculously about me and your own attempts at ‘reform.’ I held back, because partisan attacks — even truthful ones — would harm our country and reduce the chances of getting a vital bill passed.

“Well, the bill is now passed. I put country first. You didn’t, and you lied on top of that. And now — only now that this crisis has been dealt with, to the extent we can — I’m going to give you a bit of straight-talk about Fannie, Freddie, my attempts to reform it, and your attempts to block reform on behalf of your big donors and friends in ACORN.”

But US News’ blogCapital Commercereports today that McCain apparently intends to keep on keeping-on with the same strategy that has resulted in an increasingly large lead for Barack Obama.

Let me put it as plainly as I can: the financial crisis has become THE issue that will decide the election. Americans will decide who is responsible based on the information they are given, and they will punish them by voting them out of office. Right now they are blaming Bush, Republicans and John McCain. If McCain doesn’t work forcefully to change this, he will lose.

I strongly urge everyone tocall or email the McCain campaign and tell them they absolutely must fight back hard against Democrat lies, and they absolutely must explain to Americans that it is Democrat policy that foced lenders to make risky loans to people who otherwise wouldn’t qualify, and Democrats running Fannie Mae who encouraged banks to increase the amount of these loans they made while giving themselves millions in bonuses for it and Democrats in congress who blocked President Bush, John McCain and Republicans’ attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie over a dozen times while using Fannie and Freddie as their personal campaign piggy banks.

Please call and write. The election will be decided on this. The RNCC video is PERFECT. Exactly what McCain needs to be doing every day.

After weeks of Democrats disingenuously blaming the housing crisis on Republican policy and their supposed deregulation, John McCain is hitting back with a new ad proving that it was Republicans who have been pushing to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and corrupt Democrats who blocked the reforms.

If you’re like me, and you don’t live in a battleground state, chances are you haven’t seen these ads. And considering the media isn’t about to cover this election fairly, ads like these are one of the few places most Americans can get a glimpse of the other side of the story.

It’s a powerful ad — especially since it stars Bill Clinton. It could be even more hard-hitting, but its a good start. It’s a 60 second ad, which makes it more expensive to air. If you agree, email the McCain Campaign, and tell them you want more ads like this. (And if you can, contribute so they can afford it.)

A good ad giving a taste of how a McCain/Palin ticket would address economic problems with solid conservative principles:

And another new ad, directly taking on Obama’s policy proposals and his dishonest portrayal of them:

And lastly, a few ads that have been out for a while that I either didn’t see, or that bear repeating: